propasaurus:Joe Blowme: YEA!!! Now i get punnished for working for a company that offers a good health care package!! YEA!! for the 40% tax on cadillac plans!!!! fark! nothing like punnishing those who work to pay for other lazy bastards.

STFU and GBTW. Just be thankful there isn't a tax on bad spelling.

Can you imagine the revenue that would raise? National debt would be paid off in a week and a half.

I never saw the difference between the federal government saying I must have health care and Maryland requiring me to have car insurance. I'm sure it is in some way but we get told we have to do things all the time.

Although I do not think that this health care bill went as far as it should have. I'm suprised Roberts went with the liberals. It gives me some hope for future decisions.

david_gaithersburg:Has anyone here ever opted to purchase the COBRA offered by their employer? Bwahahahaha! Its now THE LAW suckhars.

uh, no it isn't. i was laid off two years ago. in the 4 months it took me to find another job, i was covered by a blue cross plan that i bough and that was significantly cheaper than the COBRA offered by my former employer. and i bought the most expensive plan ($125/mo). i could've opted for a super-high deductible plan that was something like $50/mo. my COBRA was going to be something like $600/mo.

unlikely:Weaver95: we have a cat 5 derpstorm warning posted and the outer markers are already reporting derpwinds in excess of 50 rovians per hour!

Stolen for facebook status ++

If you demand royalties tell me where to send the beer.

my actual facebook status on this was this:

ok folks, here it is: basically, SCOTUS has upheld the ENTIRE Obamacare legislation package. the court narrowly construed the power of the federal government's power to terminate states medicare funds. Obamacare is LEGAL and it's the law of the land! exciting stuff, to be sure.

bulldg4life:Bachmann just corrected Blitzer in saying that the democrats used reconciliation to pass the bill. So a GOP majority in the House and Senate with Romney as president will overturn Obamacare.

Of course, reconciliation will be tough when any future bill will cause certain budgetary consequences disallowing the use of reconciliation. Good luck with that.Bachmann says Obama must go! We don't want to be like Europe!

Didn't she just try to get dual citizenship to a European country, only to change he mind once her actions became public?

Nana's Vibrator:Man, this sucks. I figured this would go down, then the public works departments, then the streets and sidewalks, then the cops and firemen, then the teachers, then the schools.Keep your unconstitutional programs away from me, you damn dirty apes! Damn you all straight to Hell!

Weaver95:Dictatorial_Flair: Bullseyed: BunkyBrewman: FoxNews is keeping up the fight.

[a57.foxnews.com image 640x387]

/nothing like not updating the headline on their front page for at least half an hour after the decision has been made

As opposed to CNN who updated with the wrong verdict?

No one was prepared for this ruling because it is blatantly obvious that the law was unConstitutional.

The widespread misreporting almost makes me wonder if something crazy went down behind the scenes, a changed vote at the last minute or something.

nah. I think CNN just jumped the gun is all.

Yeah. I think they either heard it was Roberts writing for the majority and assumed he would vote to strike it down, or read the part where Roberts rejected the Commerce Clause reasoning and jumped to their conclusion.

nickerj1:Ginsburg, writing separately for the four liberals, said they would have upheld the mandate under the commerce clause too. "Unlike the market for almost any other product or service, the market for medical care is one in which all individuals inevitably participate," she wrote. "Virtually every person residing in the United States, sooner or later, will visit a doctor or other health care professional."

This is why some of these Justices need to be dismissed from the bench. Your logic is false, woman. You admit it in the second statement when you use the word "virtually". Not every individual is an actor in the medical care market because: I can go to another country and get health care; I can render my own health care; I can never use health care. And before you invoke Wickard v Filburn and argue all three of those options "affect" the medical care market, we both Wickard was the wrong decision. Robert's opinion is correct, in that it is not valid under the Commerce clause.

So, when you collapse in the street (not a threat, but an example) and someone calls the paramedics and they take you to the hospital for treatment, that hospital is NOT going to charge you because you didn't have an opportunity to partcipate in the "free market" of health care. Uh-huh....

Gwendolyn:I never saw the difference between the federal government saying I must have health care and Maryland requiring me to have car insurance. I'm sure it is in some way but we get told we have to do things all the time.

I must be the only one not surprised because the precedent was set decades ago. You're required, via the FICA act, to pay a tax that provides for your own (minimal) retirement fund, as well as other programs (Medicare, benefits for the disabled, etc.). This really isn't significantly different from that.

inner ted:Kuroshin: MasterThief: Silver lining based on SCOTUSBlog: The mandate was not a legit use of the commerce clause, but it was OK as a tax.

So yes, Obama and the Democrats did, in fact, raise taxes on the middle class. After repeatedly promising not to.

Not mine. I have health insurance.

So yeah, not really.

/a really weird way of doing things - punitive taxation...

uh ya, really

i have health insurance now through my employer. it is a small company, less than 20 people.

now they are going to drop our insurance cause they can't afford it.

so now i get to buy a product only where my government allows,where ever I want, or get taxed if i don't.

/the lib jack off fest here is priceless in it's ignorance.

//what's the lib equivalent of a tea-bagger??

You can get what ever health insurance you want. If you are too lazy deal with the hassle of finding you own you can sign up for the Exchange program and they'll find you one.

Also did you know that this tax only comes in to play during tax time (it's not taken out of each pay check), it's just a yes/no box on your tax form. There's no real legal ramification defined (ie no tax liens or criminal penalties) and nobody is checking the millions and millions of people that they in fact have insurance or don't so you can just simply lie on the tax form. Also there are so many ways to get out of it with a clear conscience, you can even use religious beliefs as an excused to get out of paying.

I said before that the entire "constitutionality" argument was dumb because it was purely semantics.

You can do what Obama did - have a "mandate" and have tax penalties to people who have don't have insurance. But it is exactly equivalent to raising taxes on everyone and giving tax breaks to people who have insurance. Obama did it the way he did because he didn't want to seem like he was raising taxes, even if he technically was.

I am sure Republicans will latch onto this and drive into people's heads that everyone's taxes got raised but that simply isn't true - only people who don't buy insurance will see taxes increase. Republicans are already arguing that this plan will hurt young people who can't afford insurance - but forget that HCR also now forces insurance companies to cover kids through their parents plans until they are 26, and they should be able to afford it themselves or get it through an employer by then.

Today was a big step forward, even if we see Democrats embracing an old Republican HCR attempt and Republicans crying about something they wanted themselves only a few years ago. Its better than what we had, especially with forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions.

nickerj1:Ginsburg, writing separately for the four liberals, said they would have upheld the mandate under the commerce clause too. "Unlike the market for almost any other product or service, the market for medical care is one in which all individuals inevitably participate," she wrote. "Virtually every person residing in the United States, sooner or later, will visit a doctor or other health care professional."

This is why some of these Justices need to be dismissed from the bench. Your logic is false, woman. You admit it in the second statement when you use the word "virtually". Not every individual is an actor in the medical care market because: I can go to another country and get health care; I can render my own health care; I can never use health care. And before you invoke Wickard v Filburn and argue all three of those options "affect" the medical care market, we both Wickard was the wrong decision. Robert's opinion is correct, in that it is not valid under the Commerce clause.

If you are in a car accident, then what? Are you going to mumble to the EMT to give you St Johns Wort while you lie bleeding in the crumpled wreckage?

Sometimes I love my country. SCOTUS upholding the Affordable Care Act is one of those time. Other times, I hate my country. Seeing people pissing their shorts because they can't leave people to die poor in the streets is one of those times.

bulldg4life:Bachmann just corrected Blitzer in saying that the democrats used reconciliation to pass the bill. So a GOP majority in the House and Senate with Romney as president will overturn Obamacare.

Of course, reconciliation will be tough when any future bill will cause certain budgetary consequences disallowing the use of reconciliation. Good luck with that.

what_now:MurphyMurphy: Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance.

Sort of like what happens now with my insurance company?

which was my response to what you just quoted

the part you just quoted was not authored by me.

lol, watching Fox, this just is hilarious

"this is clearly a move to a more socialist european state where the government will take your wages and make your decisions for you"

"up next a Senator who will explain how this is purely a tax increase on the middle class"

Joe Blowme:DROxINxTHExWIND: Joe Blowme: So much for wanting to help special need kids

14. Flexible Spending Account Cap - aka "Special Needs Kids Tax" ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

qorkfiend:They didn't nix the expansion; they nixed the ability of the feds to pull all Medicaid funds if a state opted out of the expansion. Instead, the feds can only pull the expansion funds.

Missed my point entirely for semantics.

Under what principle does the Federal government have to offer the current Medicaid program, without changes in funding, in perpetuity? Do states now have the right to extend all Federal programs for as long as they want them? Do the Feds lack the power to end Medicaid?